Dear Sir,

This refrain or some variant of it is repeated ad nauseam by journalists, commentators and politicians — “Burt, Wilson, et al, did well/were successful at the start of the pandemic".

It seems like one of those things that hopes to become true once repeated often enough. But can such statements be demonstrated? And, if so, by what metric are those who keep repeating it measuring the success?

Is the metric population health and lives saved? But then, how many people have either died or fell ill while the Government "did well" and called a General Election? After ratcheting up the level of fear, have the deleterious effects on health and wellbeing of children and adults been measured. Was such dystopian fearmongering considered risk-appropriate or medically ethical?

Is the metric saving the hospital, as was the first reason for “two weeks to slow the spread”? But why more than two years later is the hospital still short of cash and beds?

Is the metric the economy? No rebuttal needed and those government-generated CPI numbers are not plausible.

Rather, I think doing well or having success in government is now measured by repressiveness.

This criticism is not necessarily anti-Burt/Wilson. The Cabinet, back bench and Opposition agreed with all of it.

I recommend a very interesting book, which is also some refreshing journalism by bestselling author Laura Dodsworth. Although UK-centric any reader can relate: A State of Fear — How the UK Government Weaponised Fear during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

ANTHONY DONAGHY

Pembroke